The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, November 7, 2007, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

Members Present: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Carlone, Rhodes, Di Peppe

Members Absent: Mitchell

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Zuraf, Kaminsky, Hamock, and Hess, Schulte, Hornung, and Hamock

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Stafford Town Station – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel’s 38-29, 38-29A, 38-121, 38-121A, 38-122, 38-122A and 38-124 from Light Industrial, Rural Residential, and Resource Protection to Urban Commercial, Urban Residential, and Resource Protection Land Use and extend the Urban Services Area to comprise the above referenced parcels. The proposed amendment would be for the purpose of developing a P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development. (Time Limit: November 13, 2007) (Deferred to November 7, 2007 Work Session)

2. RC2700296; Reclassification - Stafford Town Station - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural Zoning District and B-1, Convenience Commercial Zoning District to P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 38-29, 38-29A, 38-121, 38-121A, 38-122, 38-122A and 38-124 consisting of 562.58 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway approximately 300 feet south of American Legion Road and Eskimo Hill Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial use which would allow a variety of industrial manufacturing and office uses. The Rural Residential designation would allow development of three (3) acre lots for single family residential use. The Resource Protection designation would require stream protection buffers along all streams that exhibit perennial flow characteristics. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a complete listing of permitted uses in the P-TND Zoning District. (Time Limit: November 13, 2007) (Deferred to November 7, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated items 1 and 2 could be presented together.

Mr. Harvey stated the Commissioners had received revised proffers and stated the applicant would go through all the proposed changes.

Clark Leming, Leming and Healy, stated the Commissioners should have had for a week the updated proffers, revised as of October 29, 2007. He stated the Commissioner should have a red lined version that has three separate colors, everything on the proffer was in red and represents changes made from the very beginning of the application process, the highlighted yellow changes are in response to the first work session on October 1, 2007, and gray changes are in response to the second work session. He stated that all changes are listed and the Commission had gone through a number of changes at the last meeting. He stated he would be willing to go through all the changes or the applicant could go over just the changes in gray which were made at the last work session.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Leming to walk the Commission through the gray changes and the Commissioners could ask questions if they would like.

Mr. Leming proceeded with a deletion at the bottom of page 1 due to some concern expressed referencing House Bill 32-02 and has deleted, at 2B change the wording from “Retail” to “Commercial” to be consistent with language used in the Zoning Ordinance, commercial use permitted in the development. He stated another change was page 4, making a clarification any confusion with using the word “house” and changed to dwelling unit, on page 5, number 8 had been corrected to use the proper name on the face of the study “Traffic Impact Study Review versus Traffic Impact Assessment, on page 6 the applicant was trying to be consistent by just using the through spelled THRU, and on page 7 F.R.E.D was spelled out to Fredericksburg Regional Transit to avoid any confusion. He stated page 11 showed a minor grammatical change under advanced payment, on page 12 language was added to require an applicant to submit a construction plan within six month of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan and it was in the applicants best interest to do this because they would have to vest the preliminary subdivision plan He stated staff now requires construction plans come in with final plats which was necessary to vest preliminary subdivision plan. He also stated a change on page 13 showed the word Property capitalized, on page 14 the word may was changed to shall, and on page 15 the word agreement was added to the end of a statement. He stated on page 17 a change to the word guidelines to standard, and on page 19 there was clarification to the size of the meeting room to show a minimum of 150 people or more. He stated at the bottom of page 19 there was unnecessary language deleted, on page 22 the word owner was changed to builder, and the builder requires the sound attenuation acoustical paneling not the owner. He stated at the bottom of page 22 at C showed a deletion of the word and there which was carried over from a prior deletion. He stated the applicant reduced the maximum slope of a driveway from 12% to 10% and on page 25 some wording changed to reflect wording approved by Stafford County in order to assure that all development for this project has sufficient water and sewer fire flow capacity. He stated these changes had been made since the last work session.

Mrs. Kirby mentioned house bill 30-32 within the urban area.

Mr. Leming stated it had been deleted and referenced page 2 at the top.

Mr. Kirby stated she was looking for a cap on dwelling units.

Mr. Leming stated in the sentence above the deletion it states “the project will be developed to provide a mix of commercial and residential use, a maximum of 1,740 residential developed on the property with a maximum density of 3.2 dwelling units”. He stated the language that was added referencing the House Bill could have increased the number of dwelling units under the circumstances indicated in the proffer.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he appreciated the word change especially for construction and preliminary plans. He stated in the town hall the Commissioners referenced having a stage, it did not have to be permanent but equipped for meetings or conferences.

Mr. Leming stated it had been provided within the proffer on page 19 and was change before the last work session.

Mr. Di Peppe stated his concerns about the southwest corner as a recharge area for the aquifer and asked for wording dealing with that problem.

Mr. Leming stated Commissioner Di Peppe had alerted the applicant about a concern of the recharge area and in speaking with Mr. Harvey asked to check on where the actual recharge area wa. He stated staff and the applicant were all in agreement that the primary recharge area was west of the interstate and west of the property.

Mr. Harvey stated the primary recharge area in the county was along the fall zone line and does cross the interstate. He stated in the northern part of the county it is along the interstate and east of the interstate and as you move further south it moves west of the interstate. He stated in general the coastal plain area of the county was an area that has significant ground water infiltration but it was not the primary aquifer recharge area.

Mr. Leming stated there was a minor recharge area that coincides with the SDC-6 district which was the regional retail portion of the development. He stated in response to Commissioner Di Peppe question the applicant had come up with some language that was responsive to his question. He stated the applicant shall install infiltration systems such as but limited to bio-retention basins, bio-retention swells, and infiltration trenches on the outskirts of the parking lots and islands within the parking lots serving the regional retail use in the SDC transect zone provided that the infiltration rates of the soil so permit, if for any reasons the soils condition prevent the installation of said systems with the SDC transect area the applicant shall install said infiltration in other areas of the property, size not to exceed the maximum volume that would be generated in the SDC transect zone, which is defined as one inch of run off per impervious acres and is subject to review by staff to obtain the same results. He stated if this could not be done in the SDC-6 zone then the applicant would take same infiltration systems and move to another location on the property so there would be water coming back into the ground at another location.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the applicant had addressed his concerns.

Mr. Leming stated the area closer to Route 1 was the only area with the recharge area, which was where the retail commercial would be located.

Mr. Di Peppe stated in looking over the proffer this was the first time a builder had proffered a percentage for work force housing and was setting a precedent so young working couples could buy homes in Stafford. He stated there was a Sunset Clause that stated up to five years if the builder sells the property the new buyer would still meet the guidelines already established. He stated originally he wanted ten years and would compromise for seven years.

Mrs. Kirby agreed with Mr. Di Peppe for seven years with was originally discussed.

Mr. Leming stated the issued had been raised and Mrs. Carlone made mention of it as well.

Mrs. Kirby stated seven years would be reasonable. She expressed concerns about Low Impact Development (LID) that would be available for this project. She stated most people buying homes have no idea what LID was. She stated having brochures was okay but it should be mentioned in settlement when purchasing or make arrangement to understand this would be drainage in the area.

Mr. Leming asked if there was a system in place with the County to inform residents about LID and what the limitations are.

Mr. Harvey stated the County has educational brochures, also as part of the storm water maintenance agreement it was codified with the agreement and recorded in land records and was included in the Homeowners Association (HOA) information included when purchasing a home.

Mr. Leming confirmed those documents would be included with HOA documents at settlement.

Mr. Harvey stated it would be included with the chain of title with the property.

Mrs. Kirby stated the applicant was assuming the person who buys a house will be reading all the documentation. She started she was concerned about problems that had occurred in the past and future problems and having the documents in the HOA documents does not mean they will be read.

Mr. Leming asked what the applicant should do other then what Mr. Harvey had already mentioned.

After a brief discussion between the applicant and the Commission, Mr. Leming stated the applicant would be happy to provide a letter for new buyers at settlement about LID.

Mr. Judy stated putting a sign on the LID indicating what they are and there purpose and are not to be disturbed.

Mr. Leming stated the applicant would think about what sign would be appropriate. He stated the sign could be on the grass or vegetative areas within the lot.

Rob Gollahan stated after the five year period, if the builder sells it would not matter to him and stated he was not sure this project would work and was asking if he was going to plow the ground and pay for it, he would like to have a little control. He stated if the Commission stated it was seven years or nothing then he would do seven years but he does not want this project to fail in the beginning. He stated his concern was if the years were to stretch out over time then the owners are basically renting until they can sell it. He stated young people buying these homes would not get any benefits of there payments for seven years. He stated these homes would be an opportunity for people to buy in Stafford.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the first time buyer might not buy if it was seven years.

Mr. Leming stated that was one scenario that could occur.

Mr. Gollahan stated this would be the first project and wanted to make sure it works and was affordable then make adjustments five or ten years down the line.

Mr. Di Peppe stated looking at maintaining work force housing stock inventory and first time buyers have an opportunity to buy in Stafford. He stated people who work in the County would like to buy a home in Stafford for shorter commutes and would save money by living in the County. He stated there was a possibility that after five years the house may not be affordable.

Mr. Gollahan stated there would be no equity in these houses.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Commission was willing to work with the applicant and believe this could be a stepping stone for families, but he wants to have affordable housing.

Mrs. Carlone stated on average that most people own homes for approximately five to seven years.

Mr. Rhodes stated he had never lived in a house for five years. He cautioned the Commission in picking a number that may hinder the success of the community.

Mr. Di Peppe stated most kids who grow up in Stafford can not afford to buy in the county where there parents live, so it is important to have affordable housing.

Mr. Cook stated these work force homes would be strung out over 20 years.

Mr. Gollahan stated five years was what he would like to do but if the Commission wants seven years then he would agree.

Mrs. Carlone stated with the appreciation over seven years the homeowners would not hurt that much and feels seven years was reasonable.

Mr. Gollahan stated seven years would be fine and just wanted to get his opinion heard.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there should be no problem selling five affordable homes a year.

Craig Johnson stated there would be fees associated with transferring properties and closing costs which was a reduction in equity.

Mr. Di Peppe stated those fees would be offset by not commuting county to county and saving gas at $100 a barrel and spending more time with the family because of less commuting time.

Mr. Rhodes stated that families looking to buy may not stay in a home for five to seven years and the Commission should use caution of the number of years placed on Stafford Town Station.

Mrs. Kirby stated she agreed with Mr. Di Peppe on infiltration. She stated the builder was setting the precedent for other builders and would like to have seven years.

Mr. Leming stated the applicant will add that proffer.

Mr. Pitzel stated the matrix with the changes was very good. He stated buyers would not get the benefit of appreciated value at seven years but would benefit by getting an affordable home.

Mr. Leming stated Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gollahan would increase from five to six years.

Mr. Pitzel and Mr. Cook stated they would be ok with six years.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he hoped they would not need his vote.

Mrs. Carlone stated concerns with the road realignment of Eskimo Hill Road as mentioned previously. She stated in reference to the south road she had checked with two people from VDOT and confirmed the average daily trips on the road would be 3,600 and that was based on a traffic count from 2006, from Route 1 to the Landfill. She stated there was no mention of mitigation and the methane could still leak.

Mr. Leming stated there were a number of proffers regarding the methane and there would be a 500 foot buffer between the house and the landfill.

Mrs. Carlone stated there should be no reason to not move the house further back and made mention of reports taken from towns where methane was a problem. She stated she spoke with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) which stated they could guarantee no leakage. She stated she also had concerns with the high tensions wires, noise, odor, and does not feel the issues had be resolved. She stated she would like to see a detailed traffic study.

Mr. Leming stated as shown on the GDP there will not be that many houses access through that part of the road. He stated the road was designed to handle the traffic and there was a whole page of proffers regarding the methane. He also stated Mr. Gollahan and Mr. Johnson had agreed to seven years.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he read the article in the paper and tried to find out as much as possible, he then set up an appointment with Mr. Mikel at the landfill. He stated there was a company breaking ground in December that would be collecting methane and should be operational by March. He stated currently the County was burning off the methane and this new company was in the business of selling methane, they would suck up the methane and would produce $150,000 a year for the R-Board.

Mrs. Carlone stated there was no guarantee there would be no seepage.

Mr. Cook stated he agreed to amend proffers to seven years.

Mr. Leming summarized stating the amendments were 7 years, proffer on infiltration system on SDC-6, and language regarding signage for the bio-retention area.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to accept changes to the proffers. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Mitchell was absent)

Mrs. Kirby stated her concerns starting the first project like this within the County in an area bounded by the dump, airport flyover, VDOT, across from the airport, and taking out all commercial industrial properties that were originally planned. She stated she could not support this project.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Stafford Town Station to full Commission for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 4-2 (Mrs. Kirby and Mrs. Carlone opposed). (Mr. Mitchell was absent)

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to forward the Reclassification for Stafford Town Station to full Commission for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 4-2 (Mrs. Kirby and Mrs. Carlone opposed). (Mr. Mitchell was absent)

3. SUB2600178; Aquia Overlook, Section 3 Revised, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A revised preliminary subdivision plan for Section 3 with 36 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural and A-2, Rural Residential, consisting of 102 acres located on the north side of Decatur Road across from Indian View Court on Assessor's Parcels 31-13D, 15A and 16 within the Griffis-Widewater Election District. (Time Limit: November 27, 2007) (Deferred to November 7, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Harvey stated there was a question about this project in the past because it was located in the Urban Service Area which requires connection to public water and sewer. He stated the applicant proposed both public water and well and septic on the plans and there was a request for deferral while waiting on changes regarding the Urban Service Area and mandatory connections. He stated this item was at the Board.

Mr. Cook stated the only thing that could be approved would be with public water and sewer unless Mr. Berner was willing to extend the timeframe which would need to be requested in writing.

Robert Berner, Garrett Development, stated this application had been going through this process since February and would like to have this plan approved. He stated the plan could not go to TRC because he did not have preliminary plan approval. He stated this project was eight years old and 46 lots have been approved. He asked for an approval either way at this meeting.

Mr. Pitzel asked if this plan was on water and sewer or well and septic.

Mr. Berner stated on the plan there were multiple combinations. He stated with the Comprehensive Plan this area was to be coming out of the Urban Service Area. He asked for an approval so he may continue with the engineer. He stated he was willing to do what the Commission requested.

Mr. Di Peppe asked for staff to comment on the project.

Mr. Harvey stated the Utilities Department approved the review request and the Ordinance stated that if properties are located in the Urban Service Area they must connect to public water and sewer.

Mr. Di Peppe stated what if there could be no connection to water and sewer.

Mr. Berner stated there was no where to connect to. He stated the county does not own the easements to get into Aquia Harbour and Aquia Harbour does not have the capacity.

Mr. Cook confirmed Mr. Berner’s statement.

Mr. Berner stated he went as far as to create a pump station that the Utilities Department stated would not be approved because it was not on the Utilities Plan and could not pump across the sewage divide.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Judy if the Commission approved this plan, could it cause the County legal issues.

Mr. Judy stated the Ordinance has to be followed and only the Board can change the Ordinance. He stated the plan could be approved for water and sewer.

Mr. Berner stated the plan was created with both water and sewer or well and septic.

Mr. Di Peppe stated if the Commission approves for water and sewer only then it would still be of no use.

Mr. Judy stated if the Comprehensive Plan changes in the future to take this project out of the Urban Service Area or the Ordinance changes he has the opportunity to come back and ask for an amendment.

Mr. Cook stated the Commission could approve with the stipulation stating with water and sewer only.

Mr. Berner asked if the Comprehensive Plan takes that area out of the Urban Service Area would he ask for a technical change at that point or have to come back to the Commission.

Mr. Harvey stated he believes it would be a technical change but would find out for sure for Mr. Berner.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to approve the application with water and sewer only. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Mitchell was absent)

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

1. TND Tour Slide Show

James Stepowany discussed the tour of Kentsmill and Washingtonian Center in Maryland. He stated some staff and three commissioners were present and presented a slide show.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.